Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1887-02-17
morning Al 10 o,elook, apd the cn.e d

MN rlbn uhinhBeS.
The case Of Ferris Giles vs.. the Diamond
State Iron Company was thin allied
Senator Gray aud levi q. Bird, E.q ap-
penn sd for the plaiuilr, and the defendant
was rHpresantad by Congressman Lore,
George II But-s and i @ Bradford, Esgs
Dhe roll Of ihe witnesses tor the plaintiff
was llied, There was quite a large attend-
anca both In the bar and In the spectators
chairs aud much interest was manifested,
both on account of the questions involved
In the case aud because OF the eminent
counsel engaged In conducting It.
The following jury vas empAneled:
lsaac O. Pyle, Henry II. Appleton, zadock
A. Poole, William s. Yandyke, William q.
Wler, Columbus Watkins, Jason Davis, John
o. Corblt, Hiram Il. Borie, j. Parke Postles,
William White and Joseph Il. Pennington.
These gentlemen were selected. from a
special panel which had been summoned
for this case.
After this jury was sworn all the other
special jurors summoned for this case were
discharged. The general Jurors were dis
charged until Monday morning next.
MIR. Bird then opened the case with an
address to the court, saying: This ls an
action brought by Ferris Giles against the
Diamond State Iron Company, a corpora
tiOn of this city, The declaration is in seven
counts. The plaintlff charges that tlle wall
OF building which This defendant was
caTelessly In other counts It is alleged 10y
this plaintiff, who was employed on the
building as % carpenter, thai they 81 neRli-
gently and uuskilfully erected the building
IN ali its parts ns to cause 1t to fal! down
and cRuse the injury. But the
building was SO unskilfuly erected
as to the wall and as to the plans
for its erection that 1t fell down and caused
the injury sued for by the plaintiff H. this
case. The plaintiff was In the employ Of
William H. Foulk. The brickwork was
done by Francis O. Simpson. One Of the
ends Of this building was left open. The
brick wall was $50 feet long and 81 feet
high, with windows In the wall between
pilasters, which latter were 16 feet apart.
That was the only brick wall In the build
Ing. The other side was frame. Ono end
had been enclosed with frame end. The
other end was left open.
On opening before the jury Mr.. Bird said:
"The defendant was building an addition
intended for a rolling mill. The company,
through its president, Henry Mendinhall,
submitted TO Frank @ Simpson plans made
by their draughtaman who, unfortunately,
was killed. The plan called for tho length,
hight and thickness OF the wall. Simpson,
when he found that the wall was to be
nine inch wall between pilasters said 10 the
president "rhis wall should be thickeE,"
but the president said "No; this wall is
thick enough. We know what we want.
While the building was being erected
the superintendent of the company, Mr..
Davis, was there experimenting It every
day. Their cashier, Mr. Todd, was also
there. think Mr.. Simpson will say from
the stand that the wall was not bull: in ac-
cordance with his Judgment. After '5imp
son had completed his work the carpenter
part of the work was turned over to william
H. Forlk, and he went to work un ler the
plans to complete tho building, 1t being pro-
yided with what Is called truss roof,
There were no transverse walls or inside
walls or anything of that kind. Tire root
rested on the wall. The building was
nearing completion when, on the 18th OF
July, 1885, In the afternoon, the building,
through Its reckless defects, through the
grOssest kind Of negligence, without
moments warning, gave way, killing GER
tain people and injuring others for life.
Your duty will be first to inquire whose
fault 1t was. This plaintiff comes before
you for that purpose. 1t was somebody's
fault and somebody must pay the damage.
In this case this plaintiff was on the roof,
and was thrown down some 20 or 80 feet 70
ground amid the timber. IN this
fall he had a thigh broken near the hip, in
a slanfing bretk--the bone broken right off
and In that fall he sustained Injuries worse
than that. for from that day tn this. from
injuries received In his back, he has been,
and perhaps will be for the rest OF his life,
deprived 0f the power to pursue biscalling.
Those injuries the plaintiff will describe. He
was confined IN his bBd on his back for four
months Fer l3 or IA months he has been
ON crutches, and Is now lbit with one l3g an
inch shurref tifRff Chs CTter walkiae. WIFI g
cane. Some time after he was uhle to
bn ON the street his crutch slipped
and he broke his leg again. 1t has been
said that there was tornado when this
building fell, but that tornado was seen by
nobody except the defendant company. We
shall show that there was no wiod of any
kind e. do any damage whsn the building
fell. Wnut we will ask you Is first whose
iault was IT, anl il the fault he fastened by
the testimony upon this defendant com
pany, then how much will you make them
pay for the damage they have inflicted on
this plaintiff, and the fixing Of that amount
is IL matter under the law which lies ex-
clnslvelv in the breast OF the jury.
Mr.. Bird then offered In evidences the
article Of incorporation OF the Diamond
State Iron Company. Next the documents
showing the ownership of the land; and
then the city ordinances OF the city of Will
nington, in which the law designates how
buildings shall be constructed. He then
called the city building inspector, Patrick
Dillon, who testified that he had succeeded
Philemma Chandler In that office; that Mr..
Chandler was the inspector IN the summer
of 1885 identified the book recording build
ing permits and testified that the permit
for the building In question was issued to
the Diamond State Iron Company on June
9th, 1885.
Francis G. Simpson was next called, He
testified that he was builder and had
built the wall in question; had first seen the
plans In the office of Mr.. Mendinhall; the
wall was built In accordance with those
plans; while he was erecting the wall Mfr.
Davis and Mr.. Todd were about there regu-
larly; Mr.. Jones-Wilbur II. Jones, killed In
the accident--was understood to be the
superintendent Of the work.
In answer to Mr.. Lore the witness said
the company furnished the material, the
brick and the sand; there was no change
made In the plans; he objected to some
brick and they were thrown out; Mr.. Davis
said "put In nothing but good brick"
To Mr.. Gray-The bad brick were taken
out at my Instance.
William Il. Fouk was called. He testified
that he is q contractor and builder, and did
the work on the building in question the
work was done under the companys plans;
Mr.. Davis was there regularly and Mr..
Todd occasionally; the mill was built under
their supervision.
leave the end of the building open; II was
left open from the square OF the room TO the
ground, a hight of about 90 feet, In order
| to make an addition.
John NJ. Enos testified that he had been
\ bricklayer for 47 years and had charge OF
this Job for MIR. Simpson. He gave from
memory the length, hight and thickness Of
the wall how 1t was strengthened at inter-
walls with pilasters and broken bynumerous
windows; he said to Mr.. Jones at the time
that he wished nc had made the wall four
inches thicker; he didn't think the wall
was thick enough.
To Mr., IloreeThe pressure intended to
be brought on the wall was perpendicular
pressure; wall plate was placed on top OF
| the wall the rafteTs we're placed right over
| the pilasters; there was to be no lateral
| pressure on the wall.
Archibald Given was called as an expert
enced and expert builder, and 1t was. incl
dentally stated that he hud built the court
house. In regard to the building In
question he said did not con-
| sider II safe: no wall is safe as
light as 1t was-I mean in thickness with
that hight and length; cross-walls would
have strengthened it, II there had been
brick wall on the other side It would
have been stronger than IL Il had
to rest on posts; the weak wall had TO bear
| it all: there would be more likely
to be vibration In brick wall
than In frame; / would not
nut up q wall like that for my
own safety; building Is often stronger
after the roof Is on than before; the wall
was unusually long. At this point recess
was taken until O'Clock.
The superior court reassembled at
O'Clock In the afternoon. The examina-
tion of Archibald Given was concluded. He
thought the effect of numerous windows in
the wall described would be to weaken 1t,
Patrick Dillon, building inspector, was
recalled, He testified that he did not con-
alder such q wall as had beeL described as
safe, he would not build such we'll; as
building inspector he would not Issue a
H.. WNVRll